Regular readers of this newspaper will often see references to our government needing to act more like a business. Clearly the two things are totally different in terms of their structure, funding, ethos and remit. But the essential point being made is a demand for those in public office to be more careful with our money, acting as though they are directly responsible to us as shareholders – which of course they are, it’s just the window for that accountability only briefly opens once, every four years, and then just for a few days.
If we pursue the government/business analogy a little further, that window of accountability will be filled with ideas on the spending side – some will be fanciful, some no more than vanity projects. But many will be absolutely necessary. There is a flavour of the range elsewhere in this edition, where current politicians list what they believe they have achieved during their current term of office.
Few of them talk much about implementing measures to spend less; yet to be clear, this remains the core challenge facing those who take up office in summer – how will you provide the level (and range) of services which Islanders require while also reducing the total cost of doing so?
If the answer is ‘you can’t’, then you also need to explain how the government is going to generate more money, and who is going to pay it? Over-simplified options such as ‘tax the wealthy’ or ‘grow the economy’, really aren’t sufficient, and are perhaps akin to a business plan stating it will just ‘put up prices’ or ‘get more customers.’ Both wither on first contact with reality, which can be a harsh environment requiring a bit more thought.
These might be sensitive questions, but they are also necessary ones, and it will be interesting to see which candidates answer them honestly, fully and openly, and are able to elucidate the detail. To return to the business analogy, any executive knows that spending money is easy, but earning it is hard.
From a government perspective, that word ‘earning’ can be deceptive, although we do still need to feel that the taxes or charges we pay are justified by the quality of services we receive in return – if we don’t, then the contract we have with government becomes strained.
The point here is that what candidates plan to do with our money is interesting; how they plan to use less of it, even more so; but how they plan to get it in the first place is the most fascinating of all.
